Friday, March 25, 2011

The Neocons Regroup on Libyan War

By Robert Parry
March 25, 2011

American neoconservatives worried that the pro-democracy wave sweeping the Middle East might take out only "moderate" Arab dictators, but the neocons now see hope that uprisings will topple "enemy" regimes in Libya and Syria.

Read on.

8 comments:

Gregory L Kruse said...

Little do I know about Libyan politics, but I am sure that a failure to prevent a massacre in Benghazi and other cities would have resulted in much more trouble than Al-Queda could ever cause. Even if terrorists could be separated from pacifists in any country, most neocons and corporatists would consider even that effort too much trouble. It's just so much easier to let God handle the sorting. That said, I don't expect the neocons to take heed of Mr. Parry's warnings, and I do expect nothing but disaster upon disaster for the next few decades.

rosemerry said...

If all the Middle East advisers in the modern US State Dept were not profound Zionists, and the Arabists that used to be there remained, even W's gang could have been told that Iraq and Syria, even Lybia, were stalwart enforcers of non-sectarianism, and enemies of AlQaida and other religious fanaticism. Lives lost, countries ruined, the cradles of civilisation destroyed for Big Macs and Burger King culture and "democracy".

Anonymous said...

Why was my original post deleted?

No stopping the same neocons who brought us Iraq & over 5,000,000 million murdered , crippled ,displaced & diseased Iraqis.

The lies for Iraq are similar to those for Libya & Iran.

Americans are so dumbed down they believe Muslims did 9/11.

BTW who are these Anti Qaddafi Libyans supported by the CIA & MI 5 ?

All hail the PNAC conspirators their War of Civilizations Christian V Muslim amazingly is on track with Israel as the beneficiary.

phoenixwoman said...

I don't think we can extrapolate from 112 Libyans in Iraq, over 80% of whom listed their military specialty as "suicide bomber", to events currently taking place in Libya. How many of them, after all, would be available for subsequent engagements? And even this number is disputed by other studies referenced by Fishman and Felter.

Furthermore, suicide bombers represent the lowest rung of the ladder: wretched, desperate people who have no skills of any use in conventional warfare. If that's what Libya was able to send to Iraq, it's doubtful that Islamic extremists are much of a factor in the present conflict.

However, the questions that you have posed are good ones, and ones that should have been asked before committing the US to yet another conflict.

--Charles

Peter Loeb said...

BULWARK

This article disingenously hits "hot buttons" for some,unfortunately.

1. "BULWARK": If Muslims are indeed
the majority of the population
of a nation, what is the surprise
that they deserve power in
governance and citizenship rights on all levels?

Our form of "democracy" seems
to favor those like "us", with our
religion, with our culture.(An
example was the free and fair
election in GAZA which Hamas won
but which Israel and its procy al
Fatah tried---and failed---to
overturn by force in 2007. (See:
THE GOLDSTONE REPORT.)

(This places NATO as judge,jury and
executioner of UN policy. NATO
does NOT coordinate with the Secretary General as required by
Resolution 1973 (2011) of March
12.)

That Resolution was passed nearly
one month after the US vetoed
a Security Council Resolution to
condemn the State of Israel for
its actions. Every other member
of the Security Council voted
in support of that proposal on February 18,2011.

There were no abstentions. Not a single one. There was one veto,
however: the veto by the US
demonstrated to all that despite
weak expressions of "concern",
Israel can continue its criminal ways in the knowledge that they have the complete support of the US.

Israel can continue its blockade.

Israel can continue its slaughter.

Israel can continue its illegal
settlements.

Israel can continue its seige.

Israel can continue to steal
resources and homes from Palestinians.

And more.

In its veto of February 18 the
US virtually GUARANTEED more
conflict. There is obviously no
incentive for Israel to "negotiate" anything at all. They can just TAKE whatever they want whenever they want to.

Why "negotiate"?

ISRAEL'S FOREIGN POLICY: The US
(Executive and Congress) has
decided to affirm Israel's
foreign (and domestic) policies.

UN "no-fly" ZONE OVER ISRAEL:

One can only conclude that the
UN should enact a "no-fly" zone over the State of Israel and military protection and assistence to the pro-democratic and elected
freedom fighters in Palestine.

As in Libya, the option of
providing Hamas with high tech
weapons should be on the table.

After all, Israel did slaughter
1400 Palestinians in its
invasion of 208-209, called
"Cast Lead".

Of course, I know this will not
happen...Perhaps the US has
hijacked the UN for its NATO
invasions of indeterminate time.

Incidentally, a recognition of
a re-united State of Palestine
and a co-sponsorship of that
sovereign state's entrance into
the UN and other relevant
international bodies should be a foregone conclusion.

email:peterloeb@yahoo.com

Anonymous said...

This article disingenously hits "hot buttons" for some,unfortunately.
Peter Loeb above keeping it complicated -- always it is good to hit hot buttons.

As for phoenixwoman (Charles ?? ) contradicting him/her self with.

"it's doubtful that Islamic extremists are much of a factor in the present conflict."

Its for your very reason they may be
a factor.

Cannon fodder makes NEWS for the MSM.

Peter Loeb said...

THE IMPERIAL "WE"

Who are "we"?

Officials and politicians not to
mention the Media always refer
to a "we" on whose behalf (?) "we" are acting.

The following list of data from
significantly diverse contexts
is of interest nevertheless:

Gulf War-----------32 countries

Bosnia mission-----24 countries

Kosovo mission-----19 countries

2002 invasion of
Afghanistan-----48 countries

2003 invasion of
Iraq------------40 countries
("the willing")

Libya-(as of 3/11)-15 countries

(data from "Why Obama's Libya war
coalition is the smallest in
decades" in "The Cable", March 25,
2011,an electronic newsletter of
FOREIGN POLICY)

More relevant than the numbers
themselves, is the relationship
of NATO and US participation.
Bosnia, for example, in 1999
under the Clinton Administration
required that US military and
all US military strategic and
command decisions be checked off
with all other NATO members.

(See: Gabriel Kolko, WORLD IN
CRISIS, Pluto Press, 2009,
Chapter 3).

This collection of data does not
provide essential insights into
the power relationships in the
mentioned military efforts.
Except for points dealt with
by Gabriel Kolko (op cit) these
cannot be sufficiently assessed.

email: peterloeb@yahoo.com

Anonymous said...

Anyone remember the glum around the world that followed years after the Tiananmen Square massacre in China, when it was realized that that massacre cemented the Chinese leadership’s control over the country. Egyptian euphoria is a beckon to trying to make a better world. Libya almost became a warning that you better not try.

Google “The People United Can Always be exterminated”

http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/21-21/5426-the-people-united-can-always-be-exterminated

When President Reagan managed to gut safety standards and wages, and managed to create a little economic bubble as the US galloped into the race for the bottom, and as an after thought won praise from future generations, it helped create the recent economic meltdowns. Qaddafi as a strong leader for the future would have had an even more departmental long-term effect.

Richard Kane